Text Size

If Obama loses in November, the decision to spend widely may be seen as a distraction from the traditional battlegrounds like Ohio.
AP Photo

Barack Obama will focus his resources largely in 14 states George W. Bush won in 2004, his chief field operative said Tuesday, hoping to score upsets in places such as Virginia, Indiana and Georgia.

But winning the White House won’t be his only goal, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand told Politico: In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

In Wyoming, Democrat Gary Trauner, running for the state’s sole congressional seat, lost narrowly against an incumbent in 2006 and is now seeking an open seat.

“If we can register more Democrats, if we can increase the Democratic performance and turnout, maybe we can pick up a congressional seat,” Hildebrand said.

See also

Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.

If Obama loses in November, the broad expenditures — and the specific ambition of extending Democratic control — may be seen as a distraction from the traditional, crucial battlegrounds like Ohio, leading John McCain’s campaign to dismiss Obama’s aspirations of broadening the playing field.

"It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he’s so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

But if Obama wins, he may have paved the path to a powerful Democratic majority. Obama has also sent out fundraising e-mails in the last week on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

A “new president alone isn't enough,” Obama wrote in a message sent to the DSCC’s e-mail list. “I've served long enough in the U.S. Senate to know that Washington must change, and I also know that big changes don't happen without big Senate majorities — and right now, Democrats occupy only 49 seats.”

“This November, we have a chance to create a Democratic Senate majority like we haven't seen in decades — but it won't happen on its own,” he wrote.

"I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

And now we shall drink a toast in honor of Vlad and Huma in the sunshine.

"It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he’s so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Translation: "so weak" meaning Obama's only leading McCain by single digits in these states rather than double digits...

Do these guys really ever read what they send out there? Do they realize that (except for their own staff) people just look at these statements with bewilderment? You have to have some substance to even hope to spin bad news...

Speaking of political strategy: Justice for Sale: How Big Tobacco and the GOP teamed up to crush Democrats in the South Almost immediately after his appointment as US Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi in late 2001, Dunnica Lampton began to investigate key Mississippi Democrats....In Mississippi, the corporate client was big tobacco ? and their chief lobbyist now sits in the Mississippi governor?s chair. http://rawstory.com/news08/200... Corruption!

The media's main goal now is to surpress republican turnout by making Obama look like the inevitible winner.Thats' what this scam about playing in red staes is designed to do. I find it interesting that Obama backed out of public financing so his small donors could go nuts showering him with money but he's going to have enough extra money to dump into staes he's going to lose. Liberals think money is the answer to all problems including winning elections.If you run ads painting Obama as your every day average American.people will believe it..Too bad there's alternative media forpeople to find out what a phony liberal Obama really is.Obama wants the Christian vote while only cherry picking the parts he wants to believe.

That is a pretty colorful map you got there, not to mention generous. You have Obama at 280 and he needs 270 to win, how convenient. Do you really think he can win Ohio ?

Anyway here is what the link says that you posted

>6/23/08

Still a 3% margin and no majority for either, it also shows nadar doing better than Barr by 1%. I don't think the rats are jumping just yet, but I do agree that if the election were held today Obama would win the popular vote as you are suggesting. However he would lose the electoral vote.

Keep one thing in mind, they only count votes for people that show up in November. They don't call you and ask you who you are voting for on 11-4.

Geez, you gave him Ohio and Virginia to give him 280, that is pretty optimistic. Is Ollama in that bad a shape on this thing ?

"It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he’s so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Obama’s chances in states ranging from Montana, where Obama’s support of gun control is unpopular, to the South,

Obama Linked To Gun Control Efforts

By: Kenneth P. Vogel

***

[B]efore [Obama] became a national political figure, he [Obama] sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated [anti-gun ownership] positions. The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation… paid him [Obama] more than $70,000 in directors fees….

* * * In his appeal to gun owners, Obama has not emphad his own legislative record, which includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month…. [Additionally, a] questionnaire filled out during his 1996 state Senate bid under his [Obama’s] name [indicated] that he supports banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” [Obama later claimed that his answer on the questionnaire was a clerical error on the part of his staff].

* * * [T]he Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.

* * *

During Obama’s time on the Joyce board, though, the foundation gave seven grants totaling more than $2.5 million to a group that wants Congress to take much more proactive action: the Violence Policy Center. The D.C.-based nonprofit, which calls itself “the most aggressive group in the gun control movement,” for years has argued for a national handgun ban. In a 2000 study called “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” the group [the Violence Policy Center] concluded that Congress could and should ban handguns nationwide “soon” and allocate $16.25 billion to buy back the 65 million handguns it estimated were then owned by civilians. The study [“Unsafe in Any Hands…”] dismissed as “pure myth” the theory that the Second Amendment bars such strict gun control laws. The study was funded partly by the Joyce Foundation, said Josh Sugarmann, the center’s executive director.

* * * [I]n 2000, the foundation also awarded a $20,000 grant to a publishing group to support Sugarmann’s book, “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” And in 2002, Joyce gave $10,000 to a nonprofit group called Handgun-Free America. The purpose of the grant was “to support a student grass-roots gun violence prevention campaign.” But the organization billed itself as “dedicated to ending the handgun epidemic in America through the sensible act of banning private handgun ownership.”

The media's main goal now is to surpress republican turnout by making Obama look like the inevitible winner.Thats' what this scam about playing in red staes is designed to do. I find it interesting that Obama backed out of public financing so his small donors could go nuts showering him with money but he's going to have enough extra money to dump into staes he's going to lose. Liberals think money is the answer to all problems including winning elections.If you run ads painting Obama as your every day average American.people will believe it..Too bad there's alternative media forpeople to find out what a phony liberal Obama really is.Obama wants the Christian vote while only cherry picking the parts he wants to believe.

I'll check that out. I saw something also that was interesting. Did you see that the Federal Election Commission seated five new commissioners? That maybe a HUGE problem for John McCain. I don't know if you followed McCain's crooked primary loan scandal ... The snub of the chairperson and ignoring his warning which he said loan could be illegal may come back to haunt McCain! Check it out here:

The media's main goal now is to surpress republican turnout by making Obama look like the inevitible winner

Yeah, the kiddies don't know that though. For many of them this is the first election they have been involved in and they will learn from it hopefully.

It’s amazing how gullible they are. The media keeps pumping them with false information to get an emotional reaction from them and they bite all day long. They are media yo-yos, throw it out there and it comes right back. It is pretty humorous.

Oh well I guess the Republicans are lucky that election day is a school day for the ObamaBrats. They never show up when it counts.

I agree that the only votes that count happen in November. The map included, I see as a worst case for Obama. I think he will turn Florida and North Carolina. Either of those states go for Obama and it is Over for McCain. But it is early and I know it will be a long race. If McCain had not foolishly run so hard right, turning flips like a circus dog, he would have a much better shot.

Obama voted against a bill that would have allowed concealed carry by those who had an order of protection issued against another. You can find his hostility to concealed carry in the transcripts starting on page 100.

May 30, 2002

SB-1936

Made it legal for someone to possess a firearm without an FOID card as long as they were in the direct supervision of someone with an FIOD card. The bill became law. Obama voted against it.

March 24, 2003

SB-356

From the legislature site: "Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that the Department of State Police shall publish a list of handguns having a barrel, slide, frame or receiver that is a die casting of zinc alloy or any other nonhomogeneous metal which will melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Provides that a building used for the unlawful sale of firearms may be abated as a public nuisance only if the person using the building for the unlawful sale has been convicted of the offense and the Department of State Police has published the list of prohibited firearms. Effective immediately." Obama vote for this bill. It died in the House.

March 25, 2003

SB-2163

Would have lowered the age for FOID card from 21 to 18. The result is that some men in the military are not able to own firearms. Obama voted against it.

March 27, 2003

SB-947

A "Gun Show Loophole" bill. Obama voted for it.

May 7, 2003

HB-1096

Would have legalized handgun deer hunting. Obama did not vote.

May 15, 2003

HB-515

This bill was to notify gun owners when their gun was the subject of records request or search. The bill would have allowed the owner to have his trace information destroyed under certain circumstances. During this time Daley was trying to use trace information to use in gun manufacturer lawsuits. Obama voted against the bill. It passed but the governor vetoed it.

May 16, 2003

HB-2579

House Bill 2579 evolved from a car "secret compartments" bill to a one handgun every 30 days bill. Obama goes on for more than a page about this "very measured, modest regulation" on page 120 of the day's transcripts . Obama voted for the bill.

May 24, 2003

SB-257

A House Amendment would legalize handgun deer hunting. Obama voted in favor of the House Amendment. He did not vote for or against SB-257.

March 25, 2004

SB-2165

From the Illinois Legislature site: "Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately." Obama voted against this bill twice. It passed anyway. The governor vetoed and the legislature overrode the veto.